Case Report – Teggart v TeleTech UK Limited

A recent decision of theNorthern Irelandindustrial tribunal
provides further guidance for employers on the use of information
from social media websites for the purposes of misconduct
dismissals.

The facts

Mr Teggart was employed as a Customer Service Representative by
TeleTech UK Limited at itsBelfastcall centre. He posted an obscene
comment on his Facebook page from home about the promiscuity of a
female colleague. The comment included reference to TeleTech and
was read by Facebook friends including work colleagues but not the
female colleague mentioned. The woman subsequently heard about it
and told Mr Teggart's girlfriend to ask him to remove it. This
request offended Mr Teggart who then posted a further obscene
comment about her on his Facebook page. The comments were brought
to TeleTech's attention by an unknown member of the public.
TeleTech's service manager spoke to the woman who was distressed
about it. A meeting was held with Mr Teggart during which he
admitted to making the comments. He was subsequently suspended and
an investigation took place. A disciplinary hearing was then held
to discuss Mr Teggart's alleged gross misconduct for harassment of
a fellow employee and bringing the company into disrepute. After
further investigation TeleTech concluded that his conduct amounted
to gross misconduct and he was dismissed. Mr Teggart appealed on
the basis that his comments were meant to be a joke and that he
regularly mocked people on Facebook. He had also not intended to
harass anyone. He also complained that TeleTech had not followed a
proper disciplinary procedure and that his human rights had been
violated. TeleTech investigated the matter further and upheld the
decision to dismiss. Mr Teggart brought a claim in theNorthern
Irelandindustrial tribunal for unfair dismissal and for violation
of his human rights under Article 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR.

The decision

The tribunal dismissed his claim for unfair dismissal and also
held that his rights under the various Articles of the European
Convention on Human Rights were not engaged.

The key points of the decision were as follows:

The disciplinary panel's findings of harassment were reasonable
as Mr Teggart's Facebook comments satisfied the definition of
harassment in TeleTech's dignity at work policy as they were
unwanted, violated the woman's dignity and created a degrading and
humiliating environment. It also held that harassment could occur
where comments were directed to others and did not have to be made
directly to the particular victim.

The decision to find Mr Teggart guilty of bringing the TeleTech
into disrepute was "seriously flawed". The disciplinary panel had
not dealt with the serious element of this charge. The supposed
member of the public had not been interviewed or given a statement
and there was little or no evidence that TeleTech had been brought
into disrepute.

The tribunal was satisfied that the disciplinary appeal panel
would have decided to dismiss for the harassment charge alone and
that this would have been reasonable. It considered that the
vulgarity of the comments, the intention to create vulgar distaste
and retaliation through further Facebook postings placed the
dismissal for harassment within the band of reasonable
responses.

Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR were not engaged. Mr Teggart
abandoned any right to believe that his comments were "private" in
Article 8 when he posted them on his Facebook pages, that "belief"
referred to in Article 9 did not extend to a belief about the
promiscuity of another person and the right to freedom of
expression in Article 10 had to be exercised responsibly and did
not allow Mr Teggart to make comments that damaged a person's
reputation or fettered the right not to suffer harassment.

In conclusion, whilst this judgement is only persuasive and not
binding onUKemployment tribunals (as it was given in aNorthern
Irelandtribunal) it is still useful guidance. It is a clear
reflection also of emergingUKcase law on dismissals involving
social media. It establishes that even if the comments are made
outside of work and in the employee's own time they can be relied
upon by employers and used to fairly dismiss. It also makes clear
that employees will struggle to argue that they have a reasonable
expectation of privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR.